Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
No indexing url including query string with Robots txt
-
Dear all,
how can I block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name with robots txt?
Thanks!
-
Dear all, what is the best option? And are the option below good? A: Disallow
- sort-order (Only URLs with value = asc)
"A single URL may contain many parameters for each of which you can specify settings. More restrictive settings override less restrictive settings. For example, here are three parameters and their settings"
source:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
B: User-agent:
Googlebot Disallow: /*.=name$
for example www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=name source: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=156449
Thanks!
-
You could always just use rel="canonical" which would be much better than completely blocking all URL parameters.
-
Hey,
Should that second URL be www.sub.domain.com/collection/adresboeken.html?whatever=something If so, then by using /collection/?* you are saying that anything within /collection/ with a query string should not be indexed. If adresboeken.html always has a query string, it may not get indexed.
The other options I'd consider before using robots.txt are telling Google to ignore dir=desc&order=color in Google Webmaster Tools parameter handling. This is the best way to handle query string issues. (Assuming you are trying to influence Google. Clearly Google Webmaster Tools won't affect Bing!)
Another idea is to set a canonical URL on /collection/adresboeken.html referencing /collection/adresboeken.html without the query string. This tells the search engines that the query strings do not make a unique URL. (adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=desc&order=price is the same as adresboeken.html?dir=asc&order=color is the same as adresboeken.html, and so on).
I hope that helps. Thanks,
Matthew -
Hi,
Robots.txt works mainly on 2 rules. Those are User-agent: and Disallow:
User-agent: the name of the robot you need to block
Disallow: the url or folder or other url with conditions you need to block.
As you have asked in your question you need to block a url with a condition. But you have to remember that Robot.txt is giving so critical results if you did not use it correctly.
Anyway in your question, you wanted to block url/pages with query strings like page.html?dir=asc&order=name
so you have to use following:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /*?
So the above will block all the urls with a question mark (?) for all the search robots. This will not block only page.html?dir=asc&order=name it will alos block comments.html?dir=asc&order=name
So use it so carefully.
Hope this is the what you have looked for. If need more help you may ask.
Regards
Prasad
-
Dear all,
thanks for responding. If I have a pages like
1. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html exists, I want to index it, and
2. www.sub.domain.com/collection.html?dir=desc&order=color which I don't want to index
Is this the way to do this in de robots.txt?:
Disallow: /collection/?*
Thanks!
-
Hi,
Here is an article explaining how to do this in robots.txt:
http://sanzon.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/advanced-usage-of-robotstxt-w-querystrings/Depending on what you are trying to do, it might also be worth investigating parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools:
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687Thanks,
Matthew
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Indexed pages
Just started a site audit and trying to determine the number of pages on a client site and whether there are more pages being indexed than actually exist. I've used four tools and got four very different answers... Google Search Console: 237 indexed pages Google search using site command: 468 results MOZ site crawl: 1013 unique URLs Screaming Frog: 183 page titles, 187 URIs (note this is a free licence, but should cut off at 500) Can anyone shed any light on why they differ so much? And where lies the truth?
Technical SEO | | muzzmoz1 -
Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google?
Hi, we re-branded and launched a new website in February 2016. In June we saw a steep drop in the number of URLs indexed, and there have continued to be smaller dips since. We started an account with Moz and found several thousand high priority crawl errors for duplicate pages and have since fixed those with canonical tags. However, we are still seeing the number of URLs indexed drop. Do URLs with canonical tags get indexed by Google? I can't seem to find a definitive answer on this. A good portion of our URLs have canonical tags because they are just events with different dates, but otherwise the content of the page is the same.
Technical SEO | | zasite0 -
Duplicate content issue: staging urls has been indexed and need to know how to remove it from the serps
duplicate content issue: staging url has been indexed by google ( many pages) and need to know how to remove them from the serps. Bing sees the staging url as moved permanently Google sees the staging urls (240 results) and redirects to the correct url Should I be concerned about duplicate content and request Google to remove the staging url removed Thanks Guys
Technical SEO | | Taiger0 -
Vanity URLs are being indexed in Google
We are currently using vanity URLs to track offline marketing, the vanity URL is structured as www.clientdomain.com/publication, this URL then is 302 redirected to the actual URL on the website not a custom landing page. The resulting redirected URL looks like: www.clientdomain.com/xyzpage?utm_source=print&utm_medium=print&utm_campaign=printcampaign. We have started to notice that some of the vanity URLs are being indexed in Google search. To prevent this from happening should we be using a 301 redirect instead of a 302 and will the Google index ignore the utm parameters in the URL that is being 301 redirect to? If not, any suggestions on how to handle? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | seogirl221 -
Instant Indexing
I've been working on a site for a while now, methodically building content and building trust and authority. Lately I've noticed that anything I publish there appears to be instantly indexed by Google, which surprises me. I haven't had this happen before so I'm curious. I'd be interested to hear the experience of others.
Technical SEO | | waynekolenchuk0 -
Internal search : rel=canonical vs noindex vs robots.txt
Hi everyone, I have a website with a lot of internal search results pages indexed. I'm not asking if they should be indexed or not, I know they should not according to Google's guidelines. And they make a bunch of duplicated pages so I want to solve this problem. The thing is, if I noindex them, the site is gonna lose a non-negligible chunk of traffic : nearly 13% according to google analytics !!! I thought of blocking them in robots.txt. This solution would not keep them out of the index. But the pages appearing in GG SERPS would then look empty (no title, no description), thus their CTR would plummet and I would lose a bit of traffic too... The last idea I had was to use a rel=canonical tag pointing to the original search page (that is empty, without results), but it would probably have the same effect as noindexing them, wouldn't it ? (never tried so I'm not sure of this) Of course I did some research on the subject, but each of my finding recommanded one of the 3 methods only ! One even recommanded noindex+robots.txt block which is stupid because the noindex would then be useless... Is there somebody who can tell me which option is the best to keep this traffic ? Thanks a million
Technical SEO | | JohannCR0 -
Old URL redirect to New URL
Alright I did something dumb a year a go and I'm still paying for it. I changed my hyphenated URL to the non-hyphenated version when I redesigned my website. I say it was dumb because I lost most of my link juice even though I did 301 redirects (via the htaccess file) for almost all of the pages I could find in Google's index. Here's my problem. My new site took a huge hit in traffic (down 60%) when I made the change and even though I've done thousands of redirects my old site is still showing up in the SERPS and send much if not most of my traffic. I don't want to take the old site down in fear it will kill all of my traffic. What should I do? Is there a better method I should explore then 301 redirects? Could the other site be affecting my current rank since it's still there? (FYI...both sites are built on the WP platform). Any help or ideas are greatly appreciated. Thank you! Joe
Technical SEO | | kaje0